Human Rightshttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/7348/all
enLilley Feels the Heat Over Climate Denial and Links to Torture Regime http://desmog.uk/2015/03/09/lilley-feels-heat-over-climate-denial-and-links-torture-regime
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/LILLEY_0.jpg?itok=4QTC-M36" width="200" height="133" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/27/exclusive-british-mp-climate-committee-advising-coal-power-300-hour">Peter Lilley</a> has come under attack for his paid work for the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/01/3421689/kazakstan-kashagan-project-delays/">oil-rich</a> <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2013/07/kazakhstan-no-accountability-entrenched-torture/">Kazakhstan regime</a> responsible for torture and the suppression of free speech.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.rachelburgin.org.uk">Rachel Burgin</a> is <a href="http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/MP-urged-confront-Kazakh-payers-human-rights/story-26095079-detail/story.html">fighting Lilley for his Hitchin and Harpenden seat</a> at the general election, and early in the campaign, criticised his £15,000-a-year post <a href="http://www.eurasiancouncilforeignaffairs.eu/the-council/advisory-council/">advising the Kazakh government-funded Eurasian Council on Foreign Affairs (<span class="caps">ECFA</span>)</a>.</p>
<p>The former cabinet minister<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> has also been </span><a href="http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1745659/conservative_mp_promoted_cotton_trade_linked_to_child_labour.html" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">accused of promoting Uzbekistan’s cotton industry,</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> despite the claim by human rights activists that the country’s harvest is heavily reliant on </span><a href="http://www.antislavery.org/english/press_and_news/news_and_press_releases_2009/uzbekistan_2012_cotton_harvest_continued_statesponsored_forced_labor_of_children_and_adults.aspx" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">state-sponsored child labour</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">. </span></p>
<!--break--><p>Lilley also has significant financial interests in the region as vice chairman and senior non-executive of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/20/peter-lilley-oil-company-shares">Tethys Petroleum</a>, where he earns in the region of £47,000 – more than his <span class="caps">MP</span>s salary – and has been awarded share options worth an estimated $400,000 (£266,010).</p>
<p>The Conservative <span class="caps">MP</span> now sits on the House of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/25/climate-change-sceptic-peter-lilley-commons-committee">Commons' Select Committee on Climate Change</a> and is among the most influential and effective politicians to attack the Climate Change Act and renewable energy. </p>
<p><strong>Human Rights</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p>Burgin, who works for a City law firm, said: “Reading about Kazakhstan’s appalling human-rights record, including its treatment of labour activists, church leaders, journalists and government critics, quite frankly left me feeling ill.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>I call on all politicians who have any influence over that government, including Peter Lilley, to do everything they can to persuade it to afford liberty and freedom of conscience to its people.”</p>
<p>Allan Hogarth, head of policy and government affairs at <a href="http://www.amnesty.org.uk">Amnesty International <span class="caps">UK</span></a>, said: “Kazakhstan has a terrible human-rights record. This includes torturing criminal suspects, banning or arresting peaceful protesters, and clamping down on journalists – and Peter Lilley’s role with the <span class="caps">ECFA</span> ought to reflect that.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>We’d like to see Mr Lilley using his influence on the Eurasian Council’s advisory body to ensure that the council is vocal on human-rights issues in Kazakhstan.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>Oil and gas-rich countries like Kazakhstan have <span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">a track record of using wealth to buy positive public relations and the former trade and industry secretary mustn’t let himself become a <span class="caps">PR</span> mascot.”</span></p>
<p><img alt="" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/60AF003C-37BF-4B72-AA0F-6C4EDCBB4507_w270.jpg" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em; width: 610px; height: 407px;" /></p>
<p>The mother of Sergei Grigoryev (pictured) claimed that her son had been <a href="http://www.refworld.org/docid/4eaaa827c.html">tortured and beaten before his death</a> at a labour camp in Balkhash, Kazakhstan, in October 2011. “It is clear that they set dogs on my son and beat him viciously before he died, therefore I consider his death murder,” she told reporters at the time. </p>
<p><strong>Promoting Trade</strong></p>
<p>Lilley denied lobbying for Kazakhstan and would not defend the country’s human rights record. The government’s abuses <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/citydiary/11269088/City-Diary-Trouble-at-tKazakh-mill-as-Sir-Tony-Baldry-tends-garden-city.html?mobile=basic">prompted him to resign</a> at the end of last year from the Uzbek-British Trade and Industry Council.</p>
<p>The Tory <span class="caps">MP</span> told the local <em>Hertfordshire Mercury</em>: “It doesn’t, so far as I know, involve <a href="http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/MP-urged-confront-Kazakh-payers-human-rights/story-26095079-detail/story.html">lobbying for Kazakhstan’s human rights</a> – it’s about promoting trade, understanding and engagement between Europe and Central Asia. I always refer these issues to the local ambassador or the foreign office and they always apply themselves.”</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>I’m not here trying to justify the human rights of any of the countries involved in it. Quite the reverse – I have spent quite a lot of time trying to get people out of prison in Uzbekistan. That’s why I resigned as co-chairman of the Uzbek-British Trade and Industry Council.”</p>
<p>Burgin could be in with a chance of unseating Lilley, despite the fact he has held the seat since 1997 when the constituency was first created. A confluence of highly unusual circumstances all point in her favour.</p>
<p><strong>Smuggling Cocaine</strong></p>
<object id="flashObj" width="370" height="260" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=3108967001001&amp;playerID=69900095001&amp;playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAEabvr4~,Wtd2HT-p_VhJQ6tgdykx3j23oh1YN-2U&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="videoId=3108967001001&amp;playerID=69900095001&amp;playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAEabvr4~,Wtd2HT-p_VhJQ6tgdykx3j23oh1YN-2U&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="370" height="260" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" swliveconnect="true" allowscriptaccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p>The Liberal Democrats have chosen a candidate who is unlikely to be taken seriously in the local area. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8702644/London-riots-Hackney-heroines-riot-anger-at-seeing-community-destroyed.html">Pauline Pearce</a> spent three years in prison after being convicted of importing a jar of cocaine into Britain; and, more recently, she was caught in a tabloid sting apparently selling drugs.</p>
<p>Her <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/oct/04/london-riots-hackney-heroine-tackles-tories">fifteen minutes of fame</a> came when she was filmed by a <em>Daily Telegraph</em> journalist admonishing teenagers taking part in the August 2012 riots – and the footage was viewed more than a million times. She was dubbed 'the Heroine of Hackney' before reporters uncovered her drugs conviction.</p>
<p>Brian Paddick, the former Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner, launched her political career with the immortal words: “<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/9143677/Liberal-Democrats-select-Heroine-of-Hackney-Pauline-Pearce-as-council-candidate.html">She is absolutely not a drug dealer</a>. She was the victim of a nasty newspaper sting.”</p>
<p>Lilley could potentially haemorrhage votes to <a href="http://www.johnstockerukip.org.uk">John Stocker <span class="caps">MBE</span></a>, an ex-Marine Officer and “self-made businessman” who is standing for the <span class="caps">UK</span> Independence Party on an anti-immigration and anti-science platform almost indistinguishable from the sitting Tory. </p>
<p><span class="caps">PHOTO</span>: Brendan Montague</p>
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/brendanmontague">@brendanmontague</a></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11217">peter lilley</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17793">Toxic Tories</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7348">Human Rights</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/17755">Torture</a></div></div></div>Mon, 09 Mar 2015 07:01:00 +0000Brendan Montague9168 at http://www.desmogblog.comDigging Out of Canada’s Mining Dilemmahttp://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/13/digging-out-canada-s-mining-dilemma
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/mining_0.jpg?itok=xig-ZX-G" width="200" height="124" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><em>This is a guest post by David Suzuki.</em></p>
<p>It sometimes seems people in the mining and fossil fuel industries — along with their government promoters — don’t believe in the future. What else could explain the mad rush to extract and use up the Earth’s resources as quickly and wastefully as possible?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wmc.org.pl/?q=node/97">Global mining production</a>, including fossil fuels, has almost doubled since 1984, from just over nine-billion tonnes to almost 17-billion in 2012, with the greatest increases over the past 10 years.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>It’s partly to meet rising demand from expanding human populations and supply the cycle of consumerism that fuels the global economy through planned obsolescence, marketing unnecessary products and wasteful technologies. And, as the <a href="https://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/statistics/worldStatistics.html">British Geological Survey notes</a>, “It may be uncomfortable to acknowledge, but wars have been the drivers for many of mankind’s technological developments. Such technologies depend on secure supplies of numerous mineral commodities for which demand inevitably escalates in times of war.”</p>
<p>Mining is important to human well-being, but the current economic system means it’s often aimed at maximizing profit with little regard for people or the environment. It’s one area where Canadians can make a difference. Canada is a global leader in mining, <a href="http://micla.ca/">especially in Latin America</a>. According to the <a href="http://mining.ca/resources/mining-facts">Mining Association of Canada</a>, “Almost 60% of the world’s public mining companies are listed on the <span class="caps">TSX</span> and <span class="caps">TSX</span>-Venture Exchanges, and 70% of the equity capital raised globally for mining companies is raised on these exchanges.” The association adds, “Canadian-headquartered mining companies accounted for nearly 37% of budgeted worldwide exploration expenditures in 2012.” Canada has also <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/business/21633871-government-promises-keep-promoting-miners-and-energy-firms-interests-abroad-if-they">tied foreign aid to support for mining interests</a>.</p>
<p>Canadian mining companies haven’t always had a great record for environmental and social responsibility in communities where they operate — but public scrutiny and pressure may be helping to change that. In the face of criticism, industry leaders insist practices are improving. “The Canadian mining industry, and certainly what our members are doing now, is much, much different now than what it was 20, 25 years ago,” <a href="http://globalnews.ca/news/1393152/canadian-mining-companies-under-fire-for-latin-america-operations/">Canadian Mining Association president and <span class="caps">CEO</span> Pierre Gratton told Global News</a> in response to a critical Council on Hemispheric Affairs article.</p>
<p>According to the <a href="http://www.coha.org/canadian-mining-in-latin-america-exploitation-inconsistency-and-neglect/">June 2014 article</a>, “Large-scale Canadian mining companies, and the Canadian government that oversees such commercial ventures, have failed to adhere to reliable standards of international law, which assert that home states are responsible for the actions of their citizens abroad.” The article points to evidence that Canadian mining corporations have often operated with little regard for nature reserves and protected areas, and have depleted scarce water supplies, neglected indigenous rights and disrupted communities and created health problems through air, water and land pollution. “Each year, a number of protestors who raise concerns against mining activities are seriously injured, persecuted, or even killed.”</p>
<p>That appears to be the case at a gold- and silver-mining operation in Guatemala run by a subsidiary of Canada’s Goldcorp. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2014/aug/12/guatemala-gold-mine-protester-beaten-burnt-alive">According to the <em>Guardian</em></a>, it’s drawn numerous local complaints for “intimidation, threats, social division, violence, bribery and corruption of local authorities, destruction and contamination of water sources, livestock dying, houses shaking, cracked walls, the criminalization of protest, forest cleared, and appalling health impacts such as malnutrition and skin diseases.” An indigenous man who spoke against the mine was beaten and burned alive by hooded men who first questioned him about anti-mining activities. <a href="http://www.goldcorp.com/blog/2012/Myths-of-Marlin-Mine/default.aspx?view=details&amp;item=Myths-of-Marlin-Mine">Goldcorp has denied the allegations</a>.</p>
<p>In the past, Canadian companies haven’t been held responsible for actions of foreign subsidiaries — but that may change. A number of people from Eritrea and Guatemala are suing three Canadian mining companies in Canadian courts for alleged abuses at mines in those countries, which include forced labour, human rights violations and assault. The <em>Financial Post</em> said <a href="http://business.financialpost.com/2014/12/10/canadian-mining-companies-face-lawsuits-over-foreign-activities/#__federated=1">lawyers are getting around the “corporate veil”</a> by “suing the Canadian parents for negligence and other traditional torts on the grounds that management hasn’t lived up to the standards outlined in their public pronouncements.” In other words, the companies are being held globally to the standards they publicly claim at home.</p>
<p>Mining is important but, as with much human activity in the face of rapidly growing populations, we must learn to develop and use resources in ways that aren’t wasteful, destructive and unsustainable. And mining companies must be held to high standards for environmental and human rights protection — at home and abroad.</p>
<p><em>Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundations Senior Editor Ian Hanington.</em></p>
<p><em>Learn more at <a href="http://www.davidsuzuki.org">www.davidsuzuki.org</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:9px;">Image credit: <a href="http://www.coha.org/canadian-mining-in-latin-america-exploitation-inconsistency-and-neglect/open/">Council on Hemispheric Affairs</a>.</span></em></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3602">mining</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/canada">canada</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19506">canadian mining</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15963">Goldcorp</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1022">Latin America</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7348">Human Rights</a></div></div></div>Wed, 14 Jan 2015 00:29:56 +0000Guest8981 at http://www.desmogblog.comChina-Canada Investment "Straitjacket:" Interview with Gus Van Harten Part 3http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/18/china-canada-investment-straitjacket-interview-gus-van-harten-part-3
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_107126552.jpg?itok=-aNhY4cB" width="200" height="112" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>This is the third and final post in the series <em>China-Canada Investment “Straitjacket:” Exclusive Interview with Gus Van Harten</em>. You can access <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/15/china-canada-investment-treaty-designed-be-straight-jacket-canada-exclusive-interview-trade-investment-lawyer-gus-van">Part 1 here</a> and <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/16/china-canada-investment-straitjacket-interview-gus-van-harten-part-2">Part 2 here</a>.</p>
<div>
Canada has already begun the short countdown to the day the China-Canada Investment Deal becomes ratified in the House of Commons, although the nation has been granted no opportunity to clarify or discuss the full economic or environmental significance of the agreement - the most significant in Canada's history since <span class="caps">NAFTA</span>.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Prime Minister Harper, who <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-arrives-in-russia-for-21-nation-apec-summit/article4525943/">signed the agreement in Vladivostok</a> in September, is forcing this deal through with such force and brevity it makes the <a href="http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1216175--environmental-crisis-we-have-a-democratic-crisis">undemocratic Omnibus budget bill C-38</a> look like a dress rehearsal. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
International investment lawyer and trade agreement expert Gus Van Harten has landed center-stage in the controversy as one of the only figures willing and qualified to speak up against the investment agreement. He told DeSmog that Canada's rush to enter into an investment deal of this sort endangers Canadian democracy, threatens Canadian sovereignty and could fracture the government's loyalty to its people. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
In this post, the final segment of our interview with Van Harten, he discusses in more detail just how bad this deal is for Canada economically and how much it threatens to corrupt our way of doing business. </div>
<!--break-->
<div>
</div>
<div>
Below is Part 3 of our interview:</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Carol Linnitt: I’ve got a couple other questions for you. Maybe I’ll ask you about transparency. So, any challenge that Chinese investors might pose to the Canadian government in regards to legal frameworks, this all can happen behind closed doors, in the sense that the Canadian public will have no idea that this is happening whatsoever, and have no possibility of even participating in a discussion about the outcome or the decisions the Canadian government makes.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Gus Van Harten</strong>: <strong>In the arbitrations, the only parties that have a right to standing are the national government of the country that’s been sued, the federal government, and the investors. No one else, native groups in <span class="caps">BC</span>, the British Columbia government, domestic Canadian companies, even if their rights or interests are affected directly by the occasion, let’s say their reputation is affected, they have no right of standing.</strong> That is because it’s an international arbitration, so it’s not exceptional in that context.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
What’s exceptional is that they allow this private investor to go into the international arbitration, but no other private party. The point is, the <em>Canadian government</em> reserved the right in the treaty to keep claims by Chinese investors against Canada, against the Canadian governments, to keep those confidential if the Canadian government decides that it is in the public interest to do that.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>So that raises the question, when will the Canadian government think it is not in the public interest to tell Canadians that Canada has been sued by a Chinese investor?</strong> The treaty clearly contemplates that there will be such situations. If the government wanted to make all of these claims public, it could easily have done so in the treaty, because that’s what it has done in the past treaties, that it signed with countries like Romania for example. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: Okay.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><span class="caps">GVH</span></strong>: So we can presume that some or many or even all of the arbitration claims may not in fact be made public. That is, the hearings may not be made public and documents associated with the arbitration may not be made public. <strong>I should stress, the treaty does provide for any awards to be made public, but also important are the submissions that the parties are making in the arbitration, especially our own government on our behalf. Those should also be public, but the government has said that it can keep them confidential if the government considers it to be in the public interest under the treaty.</strong></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<img alt="" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Harper%20Great%20Wall%20China.jpeg" style="width: 550px; height: 574px; " /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: This is interesting too because if we are looking at this deal as a great economic opportunity in terms of Canada’s doors being open to the fastest growing global economy in the world right now, is there additional element of say, economic entanglement that will complicate these issues further, if say we become reliant upon Chinese investment and also the availability of Chinese markets for our products. Does that add an additional layer of complication to the way that decisions will be made with this deal?</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><span class="caps">GVH</span></strong>: Well,<strong> what this deal is setting up is for us to play the role of the supplier of raw resources to feed the Chinese industrial machine. We will have difficulty competing with Chinese manufacturing because of the extremely low cost of labour in China. </strong>Because the lack of regulation of various aspects that we would regulate here, because of the immense amount of money the Chinese are investing in research and development, and because the Chinese are very quickly copying western technology, they in fact use foreign investment as a way to get access to western technology. So the Chinese strategy is to set itself up as the manufacturing centre, and that’s where the money is.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>The real economic benefits is not taking the resources out of the ground, it’s adding value by manufacturing the resources and then exporting the manufactures.</strong> No country, or very few, has ever industrialised, and based its development on industrialisation, other than by setting up a manufacturing sector. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<img alt="" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Harper%20Chinese%20Workers.jpeg" style="width: 550px; height: 357px; " /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>So we are, in a sense, setting up conditions when we will simply supply resources to manufacturing in China. And that in a way is a kind of economically dependent relationship, because you’re more vulnerable economically if your economy is too dependent on simply exporting raw materials and you leave the economic benefits from value-added activity and from the super profits that can come from developing manufactured goods that are the edge of the technology frontier. You give those opportunities over to China.</strong> And I think it’s quite clear that that’s the Chinese strategy and this deal fits right into it. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
It would be more beneficial to Canada if the deal at least allowed Canadian investors to buy Chinese companies, on a relativity widespread basis. But the deal does not do that. Also there could be benefits in having a wider trade deal in that Canadian exports would have more favourable access to the Chinese market than other countries receive under the world trade organisation rules.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
But we also haven’t got that because we were told there’s not going to be any trade deal for at least another ten years, if ever, so <strong>I think the Chinese have really got what they wanted out of this deal, and Canada did not get much in return</strong> if our aim was to counterbalance Chinese foreign ownership of our economy with opportunities for Canadian companies to own profitable assets in China or with opportunities to increase our ability to compete by exporting goods to China, other than obviously the raw materials in which the Chinese will own the rights.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: And we’ve already seen <a href="http://www.pembina.org/op-ed/2357">a major flagging of the manufacturing sector in Canada </a>just by virtue of how much emphasis has been put on the export of raw materials, bitumen being just one of those.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>[For the impact of the tar sands on the Canadian manufacturing sector, read the <a href="http://www.pembina.org/pub/2345">Pembina Institute's “In the Shadow of the Boom: How Oilsands Development is Reshaping Canada's Economy.”</a>]</em></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><span class="caps">GVH</span></strong>: Yes, I mean, it’s pretty clear that the Harper government does not have as its priority support for the established manufacturing sector, and that its higher priority is to get investments into the resource sector to get the resources out of the ground and generate economic activity in that way. It’s not a bad short-term strategy if you want to create some growth, but as a long term strategy it’s not good because it puts too many of our eggs in one basket. And because resource prices are notoriously unreliable, and finally because <strong>if the resource extraction activities are owned by foreign companies, then over the long term they will be earning the profits from the exploitation of our resources rather than Canadian companies</strong>. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: And doing so under a rubric of foreign design that might not serve Canadian interests or the interest of local communities, or upholding the rights of First Nations.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><span class="caps">GVH</span></strong>: <strong>Economically, socially, politically, culturally, it’s less in Canadian control</strong>. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<img alt="" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/harper%20china%20temple.jpeg" style="width: 550px; height: 379px; " /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: I’m so baffled that this kind of information hasn’t been highlighted by the media, who have been covering this topic, because I‘m just shocked at how bad this deal is, how much it doesn’t seem like a good opportunity for Canadians. Arguments in terms of economic security don’t even really hold. Speaking environmentally, which is such a relevant issue with climate and the tar sands right now, this is a disaster. And in terms of the pipeline, which is massively important on the west side of Canada, no one is talking about the significance of this deal for these issues that are in the spotlight right now.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><span class="caps">GVH</span></strong>: Well, <strong>people don’t understand how the treaties work and that’s entirely fair, I mean it’s complex, but those who do understand them, lawyers and academics, you see, I would say most of them make significant income, either working for investors or for states in investor-state arbitrations, working as arbitrators in these arbitrations, or working as experts hired by the investor or the state in the arbitration. </strong></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>I can’t say that there’s a massive conspiracy, but there’s certainly a link between the way in which some commentators frame the system and evaluate risks arising from the system and tend to, in my view, understate those risks, slip them under the rug.</strong> A link between that and their own career track, and their own career interests, is apparent.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Whether it’s actually those interests that influence them I don’t know, on an individual basis, but <strong>in terms of watching how the technical literature is written, how people comment publicly on the system, it seems to me that there is a legal and arbitration industry that has a lot of interest in these treaties, and less interest in how the treaties affect Canadian interests, for example, in our case</strong>.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<img alt="" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/harper%20china%20tea.jpeg" style="width: 550px; height: 331px; " /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: So the way that the treaty and this deal have been negotiated, it’s all said and done at this point, so it’s not as though the Canadian government could redefine its terms for example, at this stage.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><span class="caps">GVH</span></strong>: Nothing’s completed yet, the treaty has not been ratified.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: Okay.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">GVH</span>: It’s been signed but not ratified, and it has to be ratified to come into effect. <strong>The Canadian government said, ‘look, it’s going to come into effect after we’ve put it before parliament for 21 days, and that’s it. We’re not going to have any public hearings about it; we’re not going to have a vote in parliament about it, of course it would probably win the vote anyway; we’re not going to put it to provincial legislators for a vote; we’re not going to put it to a referendum.’</strong> This is going to be in force after 21 days, that’s sitting days of parliament, that’s it. <strong>But, in the meantime the government can change its mind. I don’t think they will, but at best it’s important to at least, at this time, make people aware of just how significant a long-term decision this is going to be.</strong></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: So what could you foresee being…how can we stop this? That’s the question I really want to ask.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">GVH</span>: Yes, other people are asking that question. I talked to one or two people about it and there are some ideas, but I’m not really that optimistic. Not through the legislative process because the government controls that. The provinces might object, and the courts might play a role, possibly, but I'm not really holding my breath. I know that some provinces are aware of this and are not happy about it. <strong>I hope the provinces do pay attention and that one of them might take action to delay ratification, but time is getting very short.</strong></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: Yes, very short.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<img alt="" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Harper%20China%20deal%20signing.jpeg" style="width: 550px; height: 384px; " /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><span class="caps">GVH</span></strong>: For example,<strong> I would have thought the current <span class="caps">BC</span> government and the incoming <span class="caps">NDP</span> government in <span class="caps">BC</span> would not be very keen to hear about how its options with respect to the northern gateway pipeline might be frustrated by this deal.</strong></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: That would have been my next question, that is, what is <span class="caps">BC</span>’s stance? So that’s interesting. Perhaps some really, really outspoken provincial opposition could sway public opinion about the benefits of this deal.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><span class="caps">GVH</span></strong>: …to show how <strong>this deal appears designed to stop <span class="caps">BC</span> from blocking the Northern Gateway Pipeline.</strong></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: That would definitely be relevant for people to be thinking about right now. It’s hard not to be blindsided by some of the unexpected elements in the pipeline argument, you know, between provincial legislation and federal legislation, the transformation of our laws while the hearings are in place, that affect those hearings, province to province deals; it’s had to wrap your mind around who actually has the decision making authority when it comes to this pipeline, and this is a really interesting new element to add to this whole issue.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><span class="caps">GVH</span></strong>: Yes, <strong>I assume that here are people in the provincial governments that are looking at this, but I don’t think there are very many who really understand the implications fully</strong>. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: And people who are in those positions have a thousand things to juggle, and just to wrap your head around this treaty and to get the details of it straight is a lot of work, and it’s the kind of complications that don’t play out well in the media. It’s difficult to try to inform people about these kinds of things because of the sorts of technicalities difficulties involved.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">GVH</span>: It’s complicated, true. And a government can always throw up some lawyer in a suit to say, ‘oh no, it’s fine’. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<img alt="" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Harper%20China%20building%20steps.jpeg" style="width: 550px; height: 384px; " /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: Okay, I just have one last question for you. I wonder if you’re familiar at all with the <a href="http://www.ethicaloil.org/">'Ethical Oil'</a> campaign.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">GVH</span>: You mean Ezra Levant’s thing?</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: Yes, yes.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">GVH</span>: Vaguely, I didn’t really pay much attention to it.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: Well it's still in play as as public opinion machine that is very active. In relation to the China-Canada deal, one Ethical Oil writer named <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jamie-ellerton/">Jamie Ellerton</a> has written two pieces on Huffington Post Canada, arguing that Canada’s oil will still be the most ethical oil in the world, even if China has a massive stake in the oil sands. He’s saying our human rights record, our way of doing business, all of these things will persist, even if other international players who don’t have good human rights records are involved, or we’re entering into partnerships with them.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>[Read: Ellerton's “<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jamie-ellerton/canada-oil_b_1861528.html">No Foreign Investments Can Tarnish Our Ethical Oil</a>” and “<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jamie-ellerton/cnooc-deal_b_1699606.html">Just Because They're Communitsts Doesn't Mean We Can't Do Business With Them</a>.”]</em></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
And that’s, for me, a very frustrating narrative that is emerging when we’re discussing things like the oil sands. I feel like there’s more serious conversations to be had and arguments in favour of 'ethical oil' are simply emotional fodder and not at all the specific conversations we need to have about Canada's economy, energy diversity, climate action, First Nations rights, democracy and the significance of our decisions for future generations.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
So I would like to counteract that narrative, and I’m wondering if you could talk about the meaning of this deal for Canada in term of Ellerton's argument. If we consider ourselves responsible actors, and we have a good human rights record, could something like this deal have the capacity to transform that side of Canada? That way of doing business? How would that happen, what would that look like, what’s the potential for Canada’s position on those types of issues to change?</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><span class="caps">GVH</span></strong>: I think that’s a bit more removed, I mean it’s just a bit more speculative. As to how this deal might undermine our reputation for ethical oil,<strong> I think the debate about whether Canadian oil is ethical, is really about something fundamental about the tar sands, and whether that oil should ever be taken out of the ground, because it’s going to go into the atmosphere in carbon, and if it does, if a large amount of it does, the risks in terms of climate catastrophes are obviously going to be higher.</strong> So I am not sure this deal really accentuates, or somehow undermines, the case that otherwise would be in place for ethical oil. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<img alt="" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Harper%20China%20big%20chairs.jpeg" style="width: 550px; height: 381px; " /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: The side of it that I’m trying to pick up on is the issue of sovereignty. We may be able to say right now that Canada has great management structures in place, and equitable regulatory frameworks, and so on and so forth, even though I don’t think that’s the case, especially with first nations and…</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><span class="caps">GVH</span></strong>: <strong>I guess perhaps the point is, you can't really talk about Canadian ethical oil anymore: it’s really Chinese oil. It’s Chinese oil that, because of this deal, is insulated from regulations and legislation in Canada, so this deal makes it increasingly Chinese oil. Rather than Canadian. It comes out of the ground in Canada, but many of the decisions about whether and how to take it out of the ground are going to be made by the Chinese investors. And they’re going to be able to avoid, potentially, attempts by the Canadian parliament or a provincial legislature, Canadian governments, to put environmental, health and other kinds of standards on the exploitation of that resource.</strong></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: I guess the reality is that by going ahead with this deal we are relinquishing some of our decision-making authority about the way that these resources are developed. So you can’t just blanket it and say that this oil’s developed according to Canadian values, because that will no longer be the case. And, in fact, I don’t think it is the case right now. But, this is just a perfect point in case, where we are relinquishing our authority and our value base will change accordingly.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Well, that gives me a lot of important material to work with. I’ll be in touch with you, thanks again for your time, I really appreciate it.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong><span class="caps">GVH</span></strong>: Okay, well good luck with your writing.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="caps">CL</span>: Yeah thanks, and you too. Nice to talk to you, bye.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>[<span class="caps">END</span> <span class="caps">OF</span> <span class="caps">INTERVIEW</span>]</em></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Gus Van Harten continues to write on the topic and has recently addressed an <a href="http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/10/16/China-Investment-Treaty/">open letter</a> to Prime Minister Harper and the Honourable <a href="http://pm.gc.ca/eng/bio.asp?id=99">Edward Fast</a>, Minister of International Trade and Minister of the Asia-Pacific Gateway, urging them to halt the trade agreement's ratification.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>Van Harten's research is freely available on the <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=638855">Social Science Research Network </a>and the <a href="http://www.iiapp.org/">International Investment Arbitration and Public Policy</a> website.</em></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<em>Images from the <a href="http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media_gallery.asp?featureId=7&amp;pageId=29&amp;media_category_typ_id=3&amp;media_category_id=2079">“<span class="caps">PM</span> visits China”</a> photo gallery.</em></div>
<div>
</div></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10525">FIPA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/pembina-institute">pembina institute</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10618">Tar Sands Fever</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5600">Ezra Levant</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1839">Prime Minister Stephen Harper</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10627">Minister Edward Fast</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10619">Canadian manufacturing sector</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5534">Northern Gateway Pipeline</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4389">Enbridge</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2632">tar sands</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/oil-sands">oil sands</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10432">Chinese investment</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10494">China-Canada Investment Treaty</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10526">Foreign Investment Protection Agreement</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10434">foreign investment</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5371">regulation</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7348">Human Rights</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5599">ethical oil</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8088">Ethical Oil Institute</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10620">huffington post canada</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10621">Jamie Ellerton</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10622">human rights abuses</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10623">Chinese oil</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10189">economic security</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10624">Chinese market</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10625">export raw materials</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10626">resource sector</a></div></div></div>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:00:52 +0000Carol Linnitt6592 at http://www.desmogblog.comIn Throes of Keystone XL Controversy, Obama Admin OKs Alaska Offshore Drillinghttp://www.desmogblog.com/throes-keystone-xl-controversy-obama-admin-oks-alaska-offshore-drilling
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Offshore%20in%20Alaska.jpg?itok=nQ2cwiDM" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>With all eyes on the ongoing battle over whether or not the Obama Administration and the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/hillary-clinton-keystone-xl-lobbyists">State Department will approve the disastrous Keystone <span class="caps">XL</span> pipeline</a>, it was easy to lose another huge piece of news in the scuffle pertaining to the Obama White House. </p>
<p>On October 3, the Obama Interior Department rubber stamped approval for offshore drilling in the Arctic off the northwest coast of Alaska in the Chibucki Sea. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203791904576609401721404510.html">Reported the <em>​Wall Street Journal</em></a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Obama administration said Monday it was moving forward with oil-drilling leases off the coast of Alaska issued by the Bush administration in 2008, a victory for oil companies in the battle over Arctic Ocean drilling.</p>
<p>(Snip)</p>
<p>The Interior Department's decision is the latest example of the Obama administration siding with energy companies against environmentalists amid a weak economy. Last month, President Barack Obama withdrew proposed ozone-emission rules that businesses said would have killed jobs.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>According to an <em>​<a href="http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/shell-clears-another-hurdle-offshore-oil-drilling-alaskas-arctic">Alaska</a><a href="http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/shell-clears-another-hurdle-offshore-oil-drilling-alaskas-arctic"> </a></em><a href="http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/shell-clears-another-hurdle-offshore-oil-drilling-alaskas-arctic"><em>Dispatch</em>​ story</a>, the area that received drilling approval is 2.8 million acres and companies bid $2.6 billion in an auction for drilling rights, with fossil fuel conglomerates Shell and ConocoPhillips leading the way. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/chukchi-sea-lease-sale-back-in-court-federal-agency-says-environmental-work-was-complete/2011/10/03/gIQA1oeDJL_story.html">The <em>Associated </em><em>Press</em>​ (<span class="caps">AP</span>) wrote</a>, “Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc…spent $2.1 billion for the leases in 2008.” </p>
<!--break-->
<div>
<br /><p>The last hurdle now, assuming there is no backlash against the drilling, is a lawsuit currently in the works brought forth by <a href="http://earthjustice.org/">Earthjustice</a>, which says drilling will negatively impact whales, polar bears, walrus, fish and other Arctic marine species.</p>
<h2>
​Shell's Atrocious Human Rights Abuses and Oil Spills in Nigeria: Foreshadowing Disaster</h2>
<p>The Obama Administration decision to allow Shell and friends to drill in the Chibucki came on the same day as the release of a damning report titled, “<a href="http://createsend.com/t/r-2AF22EB717FF0D1A">Counting the Cost: Corporations and human rights abuses in the Niger Delta</a>,” published by a British media group called <em>​Platform.</em></p>
<p>“The report uncovers how Shell’s routine payments to armed militants exacerbated conflicts, in one case leading to the destruction of [a] town where it is estimated that at least 60 people were killed,” <a href="http://createsend.com/t/r-2AF22EB717FF0D1A">wrote <em>​Platform </em>in its Executive Summary</a>. “​Shell continues to rely on Nigerian government forces who have perpetrated systematic human rights abuses against local residents, including unlawful killings, torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.”</p>
<p>The report also documents numerous toxic Shell oil and and gas spills that have occurred in Nigeria over the past decade. “A leak in February 2009 contaminated Bodo Creek, a water source for 69,000 people. 70 experts estimated that over 280,000 barrels may have been spilled—a quarter the size of <span class="caps">BP</span>’s Gulf of Mexico disaster,” documented the report.</p>
<h2>
Follow the Money: <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Politics 101</h2>
<p>In the run-up to his 2008 presidential electoral victory, Barack Obama received over $169,000 in campaign money from Shell and its employees, according to Oil Change International's <a href="http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?searchvalue=Shell&amp;search=1&amp;type=search&amp;searchtype=com">Dirty Energy Money</a> campaign finance database.</p>
<p>Furthermore, for the past three years Shell has spent nearly $28 million dollars lobbying at the federal level alone, according to the <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000042525&amp;year=2011">Center for Responsive Politics' <em>​OpenSecrets</em>​<em>.org</em></a>. </p>
<p>With figures like this in mind, it is tough to say with a straight face that this newest environmental assault is at all a surprise – but it still stings given President Obama's campaign pledges to shift the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> away from oil addiction and towards clean energy sources.</p>
</div>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/royal-dutch-shell">Royal Dutch Shell</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/934">alaska</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1002">bp</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1118">South Africa</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1286">oil</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1520">Barack Obama</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2632">tar sands</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2800">natural gas</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3440">offshore drilling</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3844">Obama administration</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5416">Ken Salazar</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5857">Keystone XL</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6898">Karoo</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7034">nigeria</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7348">Human Rights</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7450">TrandsCanada</a></div></div></div>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 15:54:44 +0000Steve Horn5783 at http://www.desmogblog.com